[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [xmca] Project

Hi Martin,

The activity setting plays the role of a conceptual configurator. (Lefebre and the conceptual configurator, if memory serves.) The concept of activity setting offers the "projection planes" on which each component is projected. It integrates these different projections (aspects).

We can also transcribe this option into system terms and talk about spatiotemporal structures of human activity and of the activity setting.

In my work I am interested in the spatial structures of social organisms/human activity/activity settings. Actually, these are sociospatial structures because they relate the social and the spatial.

Again, I would like to mention here that I use the terms with some degree of flexibility so that I have the privilege to shift vantage points and projection planes (aspects) as well as the boundaries of the emerging conceptualizations. The whole conceptual system needs to be fluid because there are a number of overlapping aspects and concepts that make sharp definitions counterproductive and even impossible. At least at this time. I believe that this is natural when we work with relational categories. Furthermore, there is a big pressure to translate from one paradigmatic position into another due to changing scholarly interests, priorities, and even fads. These "translations" are only partially possible, if at all. Practically speaking, these are reconceptualizations and as such, they bring pretty big aberrations. Both activity theory and activity methodology (MMC) are products of modernity, even when they appear on the crossroad with post-modernity.

I view the sociospatial relationships from two vantage points and find two different projections. The social is projected in terms of its necessary conditions. The purpose of the built environment is to provide these conditions. The built environment is construed in terms of user requirements. The necessary conditions have to be translated into user requirements that guide the search for design solutions.

Best wishes,

Lubomir


-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Martin Packer
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 9:20 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] Project

Hi Lubomir,

I can see why Barker interests you, given your emphasis on spatiality. That's what he conveys so clearly, I think, the way that activity (although he does treat it as behavior) is distributed in important and interesting ways through space. I have the image of his team of observers racing after their focal child as he sped along on his bicycle!

Space, or perhaps the better word is place. (As many people have suggested.) Can we say 'placialization'? Probably not! I learned a lot about Marx from David Harvey, a social geographer, whose accounts of social reworking of space and time you probably know. And visiting indigenous communities in Colombia has sharpened my appreciation of the importance of land, territory, in supporting human life, and a better understanding of why the struggle for land rights continues to play an important part in many countries.

How do you, then, put the spatiotemporal organism in play, in its activity setting? Conceptually, I mean.

Martin


On Apr 4, 2013, at 9:58 AM, Lubomir Savov Popov <lspopov@bgsu.edu> wrote:

> Hi Martin,
>
> In my previous post I made some short cuts (and I am probably doing now). In most cases it is how we see things rather than how the things are.  I agree with your rewording of the previous statement. Thank you.
>
> The activity approach to the setting will be similar to the behavior approach. In a simplified explanation, the difference will be in some aspects and categories that the activity approach will introduce or reinforce.  However, there will be a big paradigmatic difference because the two concepts come from different paradigms. I always credit Barker for the "setting," vision and activity theory for the "activity" aspect. I try to introduce the category of activity as a major analytical instrument, replacing the category of behavior.
>
> My proposal of the activity setting is based on the idea of behavior setting. Otherwise I would have talked only about an activity system. After I introduce the concept of activity setting, I use an activity model for analysis and reconstruction of the activity setting.
>
> Again, in my conceptual system, an activity setting presupposes a sociospatial organism. This is because I am interested in sociospatial analysis for practical purposes (facilities planning). The activity system concept focuses on the human and social aspects, including the social environment, and not that much on the physical setting. My belief is that in practice situations, we need to start with reconstructing or redesigning the activity system, and on that bases, to construct/design the sociospatial situation/activity setting. In this process, we need to readjust the activity system and the physical environment options till we achieve an optimal solution. This will be the design of an activity setting/architectural object.
>
> Instead of activity setting, I also use sociospatial situation, sociospatial organism, sociospatial systems, as I already did above. I envisage differences and nuances among all these concepts and several more related concepts. In different scholarly communities I use different categories to fit better into their paradigmatic practices and to prevent outright rejections. And in the last years I started talking about the spatialization of society, culture, and activity in an attempt to explore the intellectual opportunities of some deconstructivist developments. It is interesting how the same core substance is presented from the positions of different paradigmatic platforms in a new light and presented as an absolutely new development, a personal invention, and so on. Many of the new ideas in the post-modernist realms highlight almost the same area that was appropriated by the system theorists and the like. But this is another topic.
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Lubomir
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> On Behalf Of Martin Packer
> Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 9:39 AM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Project
>
> Hi Lubomir,
>
> You've said, "By the way, the bakery is a behavior setting." What I would have expected you to say is something like, 'Roger Barker would have viewed the bakery as a behavior setting. But we now know that it makes more sense to view it as an activity setting.'
>
> How would you, using your concept of 'activity setting,' approach the task of conducting field work regarding the 'form of life' that one encounters at the bakery?  Or would you buy your bread somewhere else?
>
> Martin
>
> On Apr 3, 2013, at 9:07 AM, Lubomir Savov Popov <lspopov@bgsu.edu> wrote:
>
>> Dear Martin and Andy and all participants in this dicsussion,
>>
>> I just get into this dconversation. It is fascinating. The concept of the project as an activity system offers heuristic advantages. It is obviously an activity system, a molar phenomenon, not a molecular phenomenon. I would mention here the concept of behavior setting by Roger Barker, the founder of ecological psychology (now environmental psychology). By the way, the bakery is a behavior setting.
>>
>> For a long time I am trying to promulgate the concept of activity setting instead of behavior setting. By the way, I use activity setting as a analytical framework for analyzing build environment. I apologize to all Barker followers for my boldness, but coming from the domain of activity theory I believe that the concept of activity has stronger heuristic power than the concept of behavior. In the East European tradition, behavior is only the manifested facet of activity. In the American tradition, behavior refers to most of the content of activity. These conceptual and terminological differences produce a number of difficulties in justifying the concept of activity setting.
>>
>> However, I am also working on the concept of activity system. The activity system is a broader category, with a major emphasis on the social facets, although the mat4erial/physical aspects are considered as well.
>>
>> The project can be seen an activity system with all ensuing implications.
>>
>> If we look at the project as a personals endeavor, it might be better to talk about design activity. This will lead to major insights into personal decision-making, invention, factors influencing the decision-making process, and so forth.
>>
>> If we look at the project as a group activity, then we need to expand our framework or use a somewhat different framework that is designed to account for social relationships. There are cooperation, collaboration, and so forth. Motivation is very important.  There are also  power play, envy, confrontation, and other phenomena of that kind.
>>
>> One interesting approach to the study of individual and group design activities is the activity methodology developed in the 1960 by the Moscow Methodological Circle (MMC) lead by Lefebvre and Shchedrovitsky. http://www.fondgp.org/gp/  Lefebre was the mastermind, but after he immigrated to the U.S.A. in the 1970s (if memory serves), he stagnated. Shchedrovitsky and a number of other people, actually all comparable to him in their achievements, have achieved quite of a progress in development of their kind of activity theory, despite of obstructions from the Soviet system. Although they were not considered political dissidents, they were evidently political and scientific outcasts. They had harder time getting promotions and being published, although they managed well their careers in a quite unfriendly environment.
>>
>> There are still people in Russia working with that approach, but for linguistic reasons, they are not well known in the West, not well published, and virtually dwelling in their own consciousness.
>>
>> In the 1970s and 1980s the MMC start developing the methodology of organizational games. This is a practical application of activity theory for designing and managing social organisms and situations. It was also quite unexpected phenomena for the Soviet scientific community, which dwelled at the philosophical and theoretical layers of thinking and didn't try to get into practice, despite of formal slogans to fuse science and practice. The progress of organizational games was slowed significantly after the political transition.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Lubomir
>>
>> Lubomir Popov, Ph.D.
>> School of Family and Consumer Sciences American Culture Studies
>> affiliated faculty
>> 309 Johnston Hall,
>> Bowling Green, Ohio 43403-0059
>> Lspopov@bgsu.edu
>> 419.372.7835
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
>> [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
>> On Behalf Of Martin Packer
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 9:27 AM
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Project
>>
>> It probably seems as though I am simply trying to rain on Andy's parade, or on his project. And I'm really not. There are important issues here.
>>
>> Remember LSV's advice that the unit of analysis should still have the key characteristics of the phenomenon we're trying to understand. So to study water you don't study its elements, hydrogen and oxygen, you study the molecule, H2O, in its various qualitative forms.
>>
>> That begs the question, then, what are the characteristics of the phenomenon we're trying to understand? Recall that we were discussing occasions of emotion - my example of a 'Gott!' when trying to open the window; Manfred's example of the bank worker getting angry at her boss.
>>
>> Brecht gave us a wonderful detailed portrait of what's happened in Egypt - in which exploitation and conflict seemed to me to be write large. So let's select those two as key characteristics. Surely there are others; I've suggested reproduction (we don't want to be asking, does the chicken produce the egg or does the egg produce the chicken).
>>
>> We need, then, a unit for the analysis of human activity that includes at least exploitation and conflict and reproduction. Activity (as per activity theory) doesn't seem to have these. Neither, in my view, does "project" - at least I don't yet see how it does.
>>
>> Don't ask me to define it (!), but I've been having my students go out to conduct field work in a 'form of life' that they select. One group has been visiting a panaderia (a bakery, basically) - and they've done a great job describing the production (of breads) and exchange (to customers), the way the business is being reproduced on a daily basis, the degree of exploitation of workers, tempered somewhat because it is a "family business," in detail.
>>
>> So what is all that? A project? An activity? An assemblage? That's what we need to figure out.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
>> On Apr 2, 2013, at 9:04 PM, Ron Lubensky <rlubensky@deliberations.com.au<mailto:rlubensky@deliberations.com.au>> wrote:
>>
>> I am going to wade warily into this discussion. I think asking for a *definition* for project is fraught in itself, because it demands ontological decomposition or deconstruction, which we resist in a dialectic analysis and an immanent critique. Andy has stated in many places that a project is "an activity". A particular activity. With an emergent concept of itself arrived through socio-cultural development and collaboration. I don't need much more to understand it.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ron Lubensky
>> www.deliberations.com.au<http://www.deliberations.com.au/>
>> 0411 412 626
>> Melbourne Australia
>>
>> Please support my 200km bicycle Ride to Conquer Cancer<http://ml13.conquercancer.org.au/goto/support-ron-lubensky>(r) with a donation to the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne.
>>
>> __________________________________________
>> _____
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________
>> _____
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>
>
> __________________________________________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
> __________________________________________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>


__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca


__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca